Wait, so a woman shouldn't try to conceive while looking for a job? Or a woman who think of having a child in a near future shouldn't get a job to not milk the system? She contributed in that system while working you know? It comes from HER taxes as well. She doesn't milk a system she is putting money in. Like a guy who lose his job and is on the work benefits, he is not milking the system, he also contributed to it.

Like I said in an earlier post, there is no easy answer to the whole "is or isn't it milking" question. Women should have the right to have babies whenever they feel like it. I honestly believe that. But I can tell you it is hard for the entire team the woman is working with when, after a long interview process with a dozen candidates, a department was waiting for this lady for literally a year, one of the last candidates interviewed was 3 months pregnant in the interview, got the job, announced her pregnancy on the day after her trial period ended, then wound up with a complicated pregnancy and was off for 2.5 months sick, then the four months of the maternity leave. Next baby one year after the first. There wasn't a week she was fireable due to her close pregnancies and it went on for like two years and all the company needed was a warm body in a chair to do her job, which they couldn't do because of budget cuts in the team in the new year which left no room for a temp for the whole of her maternity and sick leave of the first pregnancy. When she finally came back from her second pregnancy, her temp had to train her to do her own job, and the poor temp who had done a kick *** job had to leave. The end result is that her choice to have children in quick succession put her coworkers and department in a very bad place as far as morale, cohesion and just trying to build a team and do their jobs. So yeah, on paper it isn't her fault or responsibility, and I'm not going to judge whether she planned the babies or not because it is immaterial, but I can understand why some people complain about a woman's god-given right to have a baby when she feels like it and call it "milking the system."

As Chris Rock said, I'm not saying it is ok, I'm saying I understand. And I can assure you that all the new hires from then on out turned the department into a sausage fest because they didn't want to hire women any more.

The following 5 users would like to thank NicoleCZ for this useful post:

When (if) I choose to have children, I'll probably take responsibility for the decision and ALL the side effects positive and negative that come with the choice. I would use my parents as a good example, they made their choice to have children and never accepted handouts, loans, or any other 'help' for the decisions they made.

Unless there's a forced rape involved, one should have the foresight to consider pregnancy when ever doing the deed no matter how much protection is involved. Unless one is sterile of course, then go wild!

Q.E.D. - any pregnancy unless caused by rape is "planned", and those who accept maternity pay or tax breaks or child support accept "handouts" and "milk the system". According to some.

Re: tired of being asked in jobs interviews if I would like to have children.

Hmm....all it takes is birth rate fall into the negative figures. Then you start getting 9mo paid pregnancy leave, 4yr paid maternity leave, free health insurance for mom and baby up to 26 yeas, free day care. Then the questions about god given right to breed become pointless, one starts feeling like being used by the community to give them that cherished, long awaited baby. I don't like anyone milking any system, but something makes me feel good about having a kiddo here, where I didn't have to feel like I had to breed to make the stats more positive for the community. One gets nothing here, but does not feel used either. Getting the job afterwards took me a day here, but it was due to the steps I made in my career long time ago. I think everyone should, women especially so they do not have to rely on anyone, not even on their partner. My team uni was waiting 4 years for me with my job, even though I have already left the country.

Comparing owning a pet (and a snake at that!) to having children? Really, Nil?

While one may or may not at some point have a snake, or have a friend who had a snake, you are right, there probably are a lot of things you only find out about after you have one, including how you feel about having and caring for it.

On the other hand, most people, even those who don't have children themselves, grew up around other children, know people who have children and maybe even participate in the caring of others' children.

So, having opinions about things with regard to benefits and risks (social, government or otherwise) of having children, for yourself or others, is just a bit different than having opinions about the owning of a snake. (Point being that since snakes aren't really a common pet, you could go your whole life without ever knowing anyone who owns a snake... the same is highly unlikely to be true about interacting with children and people who have them.)

Well I compared with a snake because it is much less work than a child and has much less responsibility and knowledge needed. It was an analogy, and an analogy has the purpose of that. Now if you want to stick on this go ahead. But at least, read my post again. I am not saying others don't have experiences with kids nor snake (since you stick on it and refuse to see an analogy).

I am saying what ME knew and didn't knew and what others may or may not knew. I don't know your personal story with kids and how many you took care of and how. I am talking to people on this thread, IN GENERAL.

Because I have kids, I can't say to someone who doesn't have one that I may have somehow more experience with MY kids but when someone who doesnt have kids tells me how to raise MY kids, I should just shut up?

Like I said in an earlier post, there is no easy answer to the whole "is or isn't it milking" question. Women should have the right to have babies whenever they feel like it. I honestly believe that. But I can tell you it is hard for the entire team the woman is working with when, after a long interview process with a dozen candidates, a department was waiting for this lady for literally a year, one of the last candidates interviewed was 3 months pregnant in the interview, got the job, announced her pregnancy on the day after her trial period ended, then wound up with a complicated pregnancy and was off for 2.5 months sick, then the four months of the maternity leave. Next baby one year after the first. There wasn't a week she was fireable due to her close pregnancies and it went on for like two years and all the company needed was a warm body in a chair to do her job, which they couldn't do because of budget cuts in the team in the new year which left no room for a temp for the whole of her maternity and sick leave of the first pregnancy. When she finally came back from her second pregnancy, her temp had to train her to do her own job, and the poor temp who had done a kick *** job had to leave. The end result is that her choice to have children in quick succession put her coworkers and department in a very bad place as far as morale, cohesion and just trying to build a team and do their jobs. So yeah, on paper it isn't her fault or responsibility, and I'm not going to judge whether she planned the babies or not because it is immaterial, but I can understand why some people complain about a woman's god-given right to have a baby when she feels like it and call it "milking the system."

As Chris Rock said, I'm not saying it is ok, I'm saying I understand. And I can assure you that all the new hires from then on out turned the department into a sausage fest because they didn't want to hire women any more.

You will always find someone who will do his best to milk the system, pregnant woman, man one work benefits, woman on social security, etc.

But it is a minority. Why the majority should pay for the actions of a minority?

Q.E.D. - any pregnancy unless caused by rape is "planned", and those who accept maternity pay or tax breaks or child support accept "handouts" and "milk the system". According to some.

Mmm hmm, thanks for proving my point, really.

You, nigelr, little isabella (and Nil) all piling on Chemmie...? No wonder some folks focus on how badly folks are ganged up on here.

As NicoleCZ (and apparently Chris Rock) said - it isn't right, but it is understandable. It DOES affect business when parents are out for maternity / paternity and the position has to be held. No real "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

However, IF organizations asked (were legally permitted to ask), whether a potential new-hire was planning to have children soon, they could plan ahead. They could set up a fund to help compensate for the cost differences, they could experiment with work-from-home situations to see if there were viability, etc, etc. IF they were legally permitted to ask, they could (should!) ask men as well, and provide the same sort of benefits to the men also.

Instead of attacking the problem, and seeing only the bad of it (discrimination or potential discrimination against women), why not help figure out a viable solution, one that honestly works for everyone (or as many as possible anyhow).

You, nigelr, little isabella (and Nil) all piling on Chemmie...? No wonder some folks focus on how badly folks are ganged up on here.

As NicoleCZ (and apparently Chris Rock) said - it isn't right, but it is understandable. It DOES affect business when parents are out for maternity / paternity and the position has to be held. No real "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

However, IF organizations asked (were legally permitted to ask), whether a potential new-hire was planning to have children soon, they could plan ahead. They could set up a fund to help compensate for the cost differences, they could experiment with work-from-home situations to see if there were viability, etc, etc. IF they were legally permitted to ask, they could (should!) ask men as well, and provide the same sort of benefits to the men also.

Instead of attacking the problem, and seeing only the bad of it (discrimination or potential discrimination against women), why not help figure out a viable solution, one that honestly works for everyone (or as many as possible anyhow).

However, IF organizations asked (were legally permitted to ask), whether a potential new-hire was planning to have children soon, they could plan ahead. They could set up a fund to help compensate for the cost differences, they could experiment with work-from-home situations to see if there were viability, etc, etc. IF they were legally permitted to ask, they could (should!) ask men as well, and provide the same sort of benefits to the men also.

You must have had such wonderful experiences with HR... I am so jealous

However, IF organizations asked (were legally permitted to ask), whether a potential new-hire was planning to have children soon, they could plan ahead. They could set up a fund to help compensate for the cost differences, they could experiment with work-from-home situations to see if there were viability, etc, etc. IF they were legally permitted to ask, they could (should!) ask men as well, and provide the same sort of benefits to the men also.

What they actually did when they were allowed to ask was not to hire the person. What they also did before anti-discrimination laws came in was to fire women who got pregnant or who got married (the main victims of this being nurses and schoolmistresses).

As per my post, potential mothers who take on a job before a planned pregnancy in order to receive maternity pay is in my opinion milking the system.....

1. per my post refers to a situation where someone who is planning to have a child purposely takes on a job with full benefits with intents and only intents to receive a paycheck during the rearing of the child.

2. potential mothers can refer to any female taking part and actions which may produce a child.

3. in order to receive maternity pay refers to intent to receive money by the employer during time not working. Which itself is OK (as I've mentioned numerous times already) but connected in one thread and one paragraph to points 1 and 2 already defined, describes the situation of social program abuse IMO.

Now, not that rape is the topic at all here, but if someone was to be raped, and chooses to keep the child, whilst finding themselves in financial need, takes a on a new job with full benefits, I see a bit more leniency.

__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin

I am NOT saying it doesn't happen. I just don't know. I am eager to hear something positive about HR, that would be a first to me. Trying to fight my prejudices (which happen to be confirmed by experience) just in case I've really had bad luck for 15 years.

1. per my post refers to a situation where someone who is planning to have a child purposely takes on a job with full benefits with intents and only intents to receive a paycheck during the rearing of the child.

2. potential mothers can refer to any female taking part and actions which may produce a child.

3. in order to receive maternity pay refers to intent to receive money by the employer during time not working. Which itself is OK (as I've mentioned numerous times already) but connected in one thread and one paragraph to points 1 and 2 already defined, describes the situation of social program abuse IMO.

Now, not that rape is the topic at all here, but if someone was to be raped, and chooses to keep the child, whilst finding themselves in financial need, takes a on a new job with full benefits, I see a bit more leniency.

So any woman who has sex is a potential mother and out to "milk the system". It's nice though that you "see a bit more leniency" for rape victims. That must give them a nice warm glow inside.

Also, let's get the facts straight. Statutory maternity benefits in Switzerland is 80% of wages for a maximum of 14 weeks, capped at 80% of CHF 6'450 per month. (In other words, it's slightly less than you get for ordinary sickness in most cantons after a few year's service.) The employer can claim these expenses back from social security. So it's not really a viable career, is it?

You will always find someone who will do his best to milk the system, pregnant woman, man one work benefits, woman on social security, etc.

But it is a minority. Why the majority should pay for the actions of a minority?

That is the thing- i'm not accusing her of milking. I refuse to make a judgement call on someone's right to breed. I'm just saying that it is what it is: planned or not planned, there were consequences for her choices that affected an entire department and the entire HR strategy. There is something wrong with the system and women's place in the workforce, there's no easy answer.

Re: tired of being asked in jobs interviews if I would like to have children.

That's a good point but not exclusive to Switzerland (although it is kinda unexpected and drastic here, I agree). As for the answer, well, they shouldn't ask, but really, you don't know, and neither do they, what will happen when it happens if it happens... I usually smile and say I have no idea where I will be in 5 years and whether I will be having children or leading my own company. Seriously. Because really, I don't know.

People have to work till they are 65... and probably longer once I will reach that age. If your education in the middle of your 20s costs 100k and then enables you to make 120k a year vs the 50k an uneducated person makes for 40 years is that a nice return on investment. Even if a women would take some 5 years or so off before kids go to school... even if she works only part time for some years. But you just showed a nice display of the 50s mindset so common in Switzerland. One of the things I never managed to deal with when living there...

To the OP: Just tell them that you have no intention to have children, end of story. If they behave unethical you can do so as well. It is in fact legal to lie when asked an illegal question! So that can never be officially be hold against you. I have never seen that somebody got fired for having a baby, quite the opposite actually - when my former employer dowsized was "having children" one of the formal factors next to age and "years with company" that decided who to not fire.

That is the thing- i'm not accusing her of milking. I refuse to make a judgement call on someone's right to breed. I'm just saying that it is what it is: planned or not planned, there were consequences for her choices that affected an entire department and the entire HR strategy. There is something wrong with the system and women's place in the workforce, there's no easy answer.

A woman who works since a while for a company, get pregnant which put pressure on the team is normal. It is part of life and a team is there to work as a team. They should be able to support each other and make it work when one is missing.

But if a woman is pregnant, get the job and do not say she is pregnant, I think it is plain wrong.

So any woman who has sex is a potential mother and out to "milk the system". It's nice though that you "see a bit more leniency" for rape victims. That must give them a nice warm glow inside.

Also, let's get the facts straight. Statutory maternity benefits in Switzerland is 80% of wages for a maximum of 14 weeks, capped at 80% of CHF 6'450 per month. (In other words, it's slightly less than you get for ordinary sickness in most cantons after a few year's service.) The employer can claim these expenses back from social security. So it's not really a viable career, is it?

wow---you're seriously having problems with reading and comprehensions

How on earth did you twist a true example of a person purposely defrauding a social program to 'any women who has sex is fradulent'

We'll delete the "potential mothers" term to "any person" who wants to have kids and wants a free paycheck and takes a job ONLY to get the benefits.

Re: tired of being asked in jobs interviews if I would like to have children.

One thing that I think is being missed here is that we are talking about having children as if it's all, and only, for the benefit and joy of the parents. Whilst it is certainly true that children give great joy to their parents, and the majority of parents provide responsibly for their children's needs, those children are also a massive (and necessary) resource for the wider community. We need to have children born (or brought) into society in order to keep the economy going, do the work that is necessary and provide for the elderly and the future generations. If everyone stopped having children tomorrow, then, we are doomed. What society (and therefore the businesses that profit from being in our society - they all sell or buy something from someone else after all) need, is a continuity of people/consumers/workers etc etc, provided through births or immigration. But what businesses don't want to pay for is for those people to be born and raised, or maybe even educated. (In fact oftentimes even individuals say this - 'why should I pay taxes to pay for ...XYZ...someone else's child....etc.').
Children, and their ability to usefully contribute to society in the future, are so important that the process of bringing children into the world (maternity/paternity rights during pregnancy and the post natal months) and then raising them should be protected and supported. And this means that businesses, that have a huge tendency to only look at their bottom line, must be 'forced' to support maternity protection but also supported in this through general taxation (I don't know here, but certainly if you have a small business in the UK the government helps with the payment of statutory maternity payments).
We need to stop thinking of children as the parent's little indulgence, or total responsibility, we all have a vested interest in producing a well balanced, active, responsible 'younger generation.

You must have had such wonderful experiences with HR... I am so jealous

Not quite that wonderful, no, but they weren't so bad either. The company I used to work for in the US allowed for twelve weeks of maternity or paternity leave (dependent, of course, upon the sex of the employee). If both parents were employed by the company, they allowed a shared total of 12 weeks to the pair, to be taken as they wished, perhaps first two (or three) weeks to mom then following weeks alternating, or however, until the total of 12 weeks was met.

I worked with women who were supported by policy when experiencing health issues due to undergoing fertility treatments, when one of them had bed rest due to multiple-birth pregnancy, all showing me part of the reason why that company came to be ranked among the top 100 companies to work for in the US.

So, wonderful yes, that wonderful? Nah, that's a pipe dream of a decent reality for which to strive. Just because it's not like that now doesn't mean it can't ever be like that.